STATEMENT: NIGEL MOORE V BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD - Moore wins

[Laurence Hogg]

From Fran Read:

Issued: 15 February 2013

 

 

STATEMENT: NIGEL MOORE V BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD

 

 

 

 

 

On 14 February 2013 the Court of Appeal made a ruling relating to a short stretch of tidal waterway on the Grand Union Canal at Brentford. Since this tidal stretch of the Grand Union Canal is subject to public rights of navigation, it needs to be treated differently to elsewhere on the 2,000 miles of canals and rivers now looked after by the Canal & River Trust.

 

 

 

The case relates solely to the tidal stretch of the Grand Union Canal in Brentford between Bax’s Mill/The Boatman’s Institute and the junction of the Canal with the Thames.

 

 

 

London waterway manager, Jon Guest, said: “Tens of thousands of boaters already moor along 2,000 miles of our waterways, whether as continuous cruisers or permanent moorers. This case relates to a tidal stretch of the Grand Union Canal in Brentford and, as a result of this Judgment, we will need to look at how we treat this stretch differently.”

 

 

 

The full Judgement can be found here: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/2728.pdf

 

 

ENDS

 

 

 

For further media requests please contact:

 

Fran Read, national press officer, Canal & River Trust

 

t 020 3204 4429 m 07796 610 427 e fran.read@canalrivertrust.org.uk

 

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------

 

Fran Read

 

National Press Officer

[jenlyn]

From Fran Read:

Issued: 15 February 2013

 

 

STATEMENT: NIGEL MOORE V BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD

 

 

 

 

 

On 14 February 2013 the Court of Appeal made a ruling relating to a short stretch of tidal waterway on the Grand Union Canal at Brentford. Since this tidal stretch of the Grand Union Canal is subject to public rights of navigation, it needs to be treated differently to elsewhere on the 2,000 miles of canals and rivers now looked after by the Canal & River Trust.

 

 

 

The case relates solely to the tidal stretch of the Grand Union Canal in Brentford between Bax’s Mill/The Boatman’s Institute and the junction of the Canal with the Thames.

 

 

 

London waterway manager, Jon Guest, said: “Tens of thousands of boaters already moor along 2,000 miles of our waterways, whether as continuous cruisers or permanent moorers. This case relates to a tidal stretch of the Grand Union Canal in Brentford and, as a result of this Judgment, we will need to look at how we treat this stretch differently.”

 

 

 

The full Judgement can be found here: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/2728.pdf

 

 

ENDS

 

 

 

For further media requests please contact:

 

Fran Read, national press officer, Canal & River Trust

 

t 020 3204 4429 m 07796 610 427 e fran.read@canalrivertrust.org.uk

 

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------

 

Fran Read

 

National Press Officer

Actually, for clarification, it's semi tidal. Between gauging locks and Thames lock.

I remember lord haw haw ;-)

[Chris Pink]

Is it my imagination or does this say the same thing three times and make the smallest possible concession to the ruling they possibly could.

[cotswoldsman]

Is it my imagination or does this say the same thing three times and make the smallest possible concession to the ruling they possibly could.

I think it says "bloody hell, we need to make a statement. What are we going to say?"

Seem like they did not work it out if that is the best they can do after 24 hours!!

[NigelMoore]

Wot - no "Canal & River Trust welcomes the judgment of the Appeal Court in which it was affirmed that the determined 6 year effort to rid the waterways of some boaters was legally unsustainable because the boaters had done nothing wrong???"

 

How does the judgment mean they have to treat this stretch of waterways any differently? On the contrary – it means they need to learn that they need to treat ALL boaters on ALL the waterways with equal respect in a lawful manner, and refrain from seeking to impose their whims on them as though such whims were law. Bullying and unlawful threats and abuse of authority must stop - everywhere on the system!

 

The only way in which this stretch is different from most everywhere else is in not requiring a boat licence - that had NOTHING to do with the appeal case, where that finding had been accepted. The case had to do with the question of whether a mooring was "unlawful" just because BW/CART said so, where no regulatory breach of common law or statute existed.

 

The principle upheld by the judgment applies to all CART waterways, and to application of all its various powers. It would have gone some way to building at least an appearance of ‘new brooms’ had an appropriate response been made instead of this inaccurate & pusillanimous puerility.

[Chris Pink]

I'm a little unclear, even after reading some of the judgements exactly why BW objected to your presence.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Wot - no "Canal & River Trust welcomes the judgment of the Appeal Court in which it was affirmed that the determined 6 year effort to rid the waterways of some boaters was legally unsustainable because the boaters had done nothing wrong???"

 

Says it all really!

Edited February 15, 2013 by Allan(nb Albert)

[bowten]

You see,I have been saying this for a long time,the Landlords need to treat their Tenants with at least some respect.

[NigelMoore]

I'm a little unclear, even after reading some of the judgements exactly why BW objected to your presence.

 

A “little unclear”? I’m not surprised. They never had objected until Ballymore wanted to clear out the boatyard.

 

BW know that’s why they sectioned us; I know that’s why they sectioned us because, apart from the obvious, I was privy to the content of discussions with Bensted when Ballymore realised it was time to engage in some rational discussion after the tag-team effort to dislodge me had failed. But that, of course, I was not able to provide sufficient proof of to the court’s satisfaction.

 

Doesn’t mean that it wasn’t the case though, and BW were as unclear as you are as to what alternative explanation could be produced – so they produced none.

 

With Ballymore having reached an amicable agreement with me as to mooring where we ended up, there was no longer any rationale for continuing the fight – but Bensted always felt these things personally, and Johnson’s amour-propre had been dented; those were reasons enough for them to expend the canal resources on a personal vendetta.

[pearlygeoff]

Well done, Nigel, and well said regarding their unlawful, disgraceful bullying arrogance.

 

Nice to see a pearl emerge from the muddy waters.

 

Geoff

[NigelMoore]

Jon Guest, said: . . . as a result of this Judgment, we will need to look at how we treat this stretch differently.”

 

The only thing “different” about this stretch is the [rare but not unique] freedom from need for a boat licence. That was an issue decided a year ago, in the Hildyard judgment.

 

People should be reminded of BW’s 2012 Press Release on that judgment:

 

“British Waterways welcomes the Judgment of The Honourable Mr Justice Hildyard . . . which resulted in British Waterways winning on all the claims before the Court.”

 

If it has slowly dawned on Jon Guest that he needs to treat boaters on this stretch any differently, it can only be in respect of an issue that they claimed to have WON last year, NOT “as a result of this Judgment”.

 

The statement, in other words, bears no relation to the true reality, and this current Press Release is sad evidence that there has been no improvement in their standards of honesty.

[Chris Pink]

I thought one of the crucial differences is that it's tidal ?

[johnthebridge]

With Ballymore having reached an amicable agreement with me as to mooring where we ended up, there was no longer any rationale for continuing the fight – but Bensted always felt these things personally, and Johnson’s amour-propre had been dented; those were reasons enough for them to expend the canal resources on a personal vendetta.

 

Well done Mr. Moore. It's gratifying to see that you've achieved a positive result in your battle with these people. It's especially gratifying for me, as I've had the misfortune to suffer direct professional conflict with one of the people you mention. I found him to be an arrogant, abrasive and biased bully who would do anything to get his own way. It's just a shame that he's not still employed by BW/CART--the court's decision to find in your favour would have rubbed his nose well and truly in it.

Notwithstanding what some have written previously on this forum, I believe you were absolutely right to take these arrogant sods on, and your eloquent tenacity is to be applauded. I'd also like to believe your actions will cause them to reflect before employing further adverse tactics or policies against those less fortunate, but I won't be holding my breath. Ultimately, I feel that anyone imagining this lot will turn out any better than the last at running the waterways will be sadly disappointed.

[NigelMoore]

I thought one of the crucial differences is that it's tidal ?

 

The fact that it’s tidal had nothing to do with the Appeal Court case. So far as the previous year’s case was concerned, it was an important, though not crucial, element for the question of boat licences; the crucial point for that issue was the consequential fact that it was “a public navigable river” before the canal company incorporated it into the GJC. Tidal waters do carry a presumption in law of a right to navigate – but it doesn’t have to be tidal for that to obtain e.g. the Thames is subject to PRN’s all the way to Cricklade despite having been tidal only to Slough historically; the Trent enjoys PRN’s way upstream of Cromwell Lock etc etc.

 

Mr Justice Hildyard having upheld my argument on the boat licence requirement last year, the only remaining issue for the Appeal Court was whether the mooring itself was unlawful – so the tidal nature of this stretch was not merely not crucial, it was utterly irrelevant to them [i.e. it only had some relevance to the whole picture, not to the latest judgment].

 

If anything, the tidal element had potential, because of Lewison LJ’s beliefs, to count against the determination on the mooring question.

[Chris Pink]

I'm slowly beginning to understand the issue.

 

Once again I admire the ability of the judiciary to extract the points of dispute from the mass of advocacy and evidence, even if they don't always make the right call - at least in this case you had the tenacity to appeal.

 

On the wider implications of this case; what is unique (or special) to this water that doesn't apply to any landowner on any river with SRN?

[Radiomariner]

Congratulations on your succesful appeal. So basically, the end argument was that BW/CRT claimed you were not lawfully moored, and your response was that you were not unlawfully moored. Is that right? Makes sense to me. Now in my doting years I find the intracies of law very interesting. When I was young it was a real bore.

Thanks Nigel for keeping us updated

[NigelMoore]

. . . the court's decision to find in your favour would have rubbed his nose well and truly in it.

 

Ultimately, I feel that anyone imagining this lot will turn out any better than the last at running the waterways will be sadly disappointed.

 

Being familiar with the ‘gentleman’, you surely must seriously doubt the fact of the judgment and its implications could ever have penetrated skin that thick! But 'I can relate' to the sentiment.

 

“This lot better than the last” !?!? – they are the last! We have the same lot, running things the same way, just with added bunches of committees hung around their neck to help slow down the perpetration of their excesses.

 

Heinlein’s “Moon is a Harsh Mistress” post revolution scenario describes the only glimmer of hope that the accretion of committees will have that effect.

[johnthebridge]

Being familiar with the ‘gentleman’, you surely must seriously doubt the fact of the judgment and its implications could ever have penetrated skin that thick! But 'I can relate' to the sentiment.

 

“This lot better than the last” !?!? – they are the last! We have the same lot, running things the same way, just with added bunches of committees hung around their neck to help slow down the perpetration of their excesses.

 

Heinlein’s “Moon is a Harsh Mistress” post revolution scenario describes the only glimmer of hope that the accretion of committees will have that effect.

 

 

 

Gentleman, even in quotes, is not a word I'd choose to describe this person!

 

Don't much care for Science Fiction, but didn't he call his Lunar people "Loonies"? Maybe you were also attempting to draw this comparison......?

[NigelMoore]

. . . the end argument was that BW/CRT claimed you were not lawfully moored, and your response was that you were not unlawfully moored.

 

Superlatively succinct! I deeply envy your gift for simplification.

[NigelMoore]

On the wider implications of this case; what is unique (or special) to this water that doesn't apply to any landowner on any river with SRN?

 

Almost nothing whatsoever [but a few caveats].

 

The continued existence of PRN’s does not of itself mean no boat licence is required, because Parliament [as the ostensible representative of the public] can expressly modify the right of the public, which it will only usually do in recognition of a “quid pro quo” - usually taking the form of a chargeable licensing scheme or toll regime in order to fund improvements to the navigation for the benefit of that same public.

 

Thus Parliament expressly modified the PRN on the Thames to make use of the reach above Teddington subject to charges so that the Authority could fund the building and maintaining of locks. The Act has to state in clear terms just exactly to what degree the public right is modified. So, up until recently, you could keep a boat on the bank of the Thames [if the riparian owner consented of course], and for so long as you never ventured into the main navigation channel &/or used the locks, you were not liable to licensing/charges. That changed a couple of years ago with a brand new Act requiring all boats on the Thames above Teddington to be licensed whether they moved off their moorings or not.

 

Post the 1968 Transport Act, BW still controlled around 250 miles of public navigable rivers where anyone could bring and use and keep a boat without BW’s permission being needed [not the same thing as not being subject to relevant byelaws]. They thought the then recent Thames Act was a good template to take to Parliament to get the same income stream on certain of the rivers. That was granted - the upshot being that on certain defined lengths of certain listed rivers, a Certification regime became applicable despite the PRN.

 

So the boat licence implications of this case apply to any river with rights of navigation if the boat is kept outside the main navigation channel. If you want to actually use your boat of course, you will still need a Certificate if your bit of river falls within the list of Schedule 1 of the 1971 Act as amended in 1974 and 1995. For such a Certificate CART can only charge you 60% of the equivalent cost of a Canal & River Pleasure Boat Licence.

 

The mooring implications of this case haven’t changed one iota from that which BW always acknowledged anyway – that riparian land owners [whether on PRN’s or not], in situations where CART don’t own the canal or riverbed, don’t need CART’s permission to moor there. It arguably enters the fray in respect of other mooring related arguments raging around the system - but I'm too fatigued with the topic to enter those lists at present.

 

The Appeal Court has not addressed/made firm findings relating to the many other issues surrounding moorings on the system, so at its simplest, the wider implications of this case remain only that BW cannot treat boaters as acting unlawfully unless there are specific laws in place – and those are carefully circumscribed by Statute. From that perspective, there is nothing in the present case that does not apply to this or any stretch of CART waterway. So – a relatively small step, but an important one.